Olivera is Bowden's #1 Player to Watch This Spring

sturg33 said:
The issue isn't that we can explain Olivera's struggles to a whole host of things... the issue is that a rebuilding team traded two very good assets for a 30 year old who has all these questions to begin with. The fact that we have to tinker with his swing is a problem. We shouldn't have given up so much for a project... and old project at that - one who has a long injury history and who hadn't played in over a year.

Now I know I'm going to be attacked as a hater but seriously, how can anyone with any semblance of objectivity defend that trade?
Click to expand...

Post of the month potential.
 
Would love nothing more then for Olivera to prove to be a solid bat for us. I will never understand the trade given the state of the team but I'm over it. Hope he exceeds expectations and becomes a solid #5 hitter for us for years
 
striker42 said:
I'm absolutely with you. The trade was ridiculous. Even if it works out and he produces the amount of risk made the trade foolish. It would be like putting your life savings into potato futures. Even if there's a potato blight and you quadruple your investment, that doesn't mean you were smart to make the move in the first place.

I agree that considering what we gave up, getting back a severely defensively limited, oft injured 30 year old (soon to be 31) whose swing we have to overhaul isn't a good return.

However, it's a sunk cost now. We have no choice but to hope for success.
Click to expand...

Not only what Chop said above.. .but there is also something called scouting.. so if he produces, then you have to assume that the scouts knew what they were doing and thus knew a potato shortage was on the way.. by your logic, it is never smart to trade a known asset for a prospect because there is going to be risk in every trade like this.
 
chop2chip said:
I think the counter argument to that is Alex Wood and Peraza isn't "your life savings".

That's a strange trade in that every single player involved in that trade has seen their value plummet since then.
Click to expand...

Yea I definitely disagree about "life savings". Peraza and Wood were tradable pieces. But it just blew me away how that was the target. Especially with how crazy this offseason was you don't think Wood being controllable wouldn't have brought in more just by himself in a deal? Peraza would look pretty nice at 2B right now too even if it's just one year until Albies takes over
 
chop2chip said:
I think the counter argument to that is Alex Wood and Peraza isn't "your life savings".

That's a strange trade in that every single player involved in that trade has seen their value plummet since then.
Click to expand...

It is interesting... but their biggest value was their age.

Also, Wood put up 2.6 fWAR last year. He put up 2.6 fWAR in 2014. And he's projected for 2.4 in 2017. He's a good pitcher, young, and cheap.

Peraza was just icing on the cake (note that Peraza was the main piece the Reds got back for Frazier IIRC)
 
sturg33 said:
It is interesting... but their biggest value was their age.

Also, Wood put up 2.6 fWAR last year. He put up 2.6 fWAR in 2014. And he's projected for 2.4 in 2017. He's a good pitcher, young, and cheap.

Peraza was just icing on the cake (note that Peraza was the main piece the Reds got back for Frazier IIRC)
Click to expand...

we also got Bird (upside with control issues).. paco (injured, that one stinks)... 40th pick in the draft... and 4.5 Million in savings for Bronson.. I know we are comparing primary pieces, but you have to assume those listed are part of the 'Primary', because they are worth a lot more than Avilan and JJ alone..
 
bravesfanMatt said:
we also got Bird (upside with control issues).. paco (injured, that one stinks)... 40th pick in the draft... and 4.5 Million in savings for Bronson.. I know we are comparing primary pieces, but you have to assume those listed are part of the 'Primary', because they are worth a lot more than Avilan and JJ alone..
Click to expand...

Wait refresh me memory: We got the pick that became Riley in that trade?
 
yeezus said:
Wait refresh me memory: We got the pick that became Riley in that trade?
Click to expand...

no, we got this years #40 pick. it was the Marlins, and they gave it to us because Morse was involved too..

#3 cause we stunk
#40 cause we traded some peps
#44 cause we stunk x2
 
chop2chip said:
I think the counter argument to that is Alex Wood and Peraza isn't "your life savings".

That's a strange trade in that every single player involved in that trade has seen their value plummet since then.
Click to expand...

They aren't your life savings at all. Just saying that just because something you do works out in the end doesn't mean it was smart to do at the beginning.

bravesfanMatt said:
Not only what Chop said above.. .but there is also something called scouting.. so if he produces, then you have to assume that the scouts knew what they were doing and thus knew a potato shortage was on the way.. by your logic, it is never smart to trade a known asset for a prospect because there is going to be risk in every trade like this.
Click to expand...

The question marks are clear and not necessarily things that a scouting report can help you on. First, he'll be 31 this year and it was pretty clear we weren't going to get much out of him last season. So we essentially traded for a 31 year old. Whether a guy will see a sharp decline soon due to age is something that scouting can only offer limited help in determining. Olivera's injury history provides another huge risk. The fact that he hadn't played a game in over a year and you only got to see him in workouts also undermines your scouting report.

My point is that the risk involved with Olivera made the price we paid for him much too high.

I'm not saying it's always smart to avoid risk. Of course you have to take risks. It's just a matter of the right risk/reward calculus. The Miller trade has risk for us but the fact that the risk is limited and the potential reward is huge made the trade a no brainer. With Olivera, it's different. We traded a known quantity in Wood and a guy in Peraza that the Dodgers showed had good value when they traded him to the Reds. What we got back was a guy who is a big time risk, who is likely in decline based on age, and who the best you can hope for is that he's an .800 OPS guy.

The potential reward with Olivera doesn't justify the high cost and the serious potential for him to be bad.
 
Would anyone make that trade if you substitute the name Melky Cabrera for Hector Olivera? Because that's probably a good comparison. They're similar age and have similar skills. Both are also likely primarily left fielders now.
 
striker42 said:
Would anyone make that trade if you substitute the name Melky Cabrera for Hector Olivera? Because that's probably a good comparison. They're similar age and have similar skills. Both are also likely primarily left fielders now.
Click to expand...

I don't get that comparison. Olivera has a great walk to strikeout ratio, and we don't even know his defensive value in LF, when we know Melky's is horrible. Also Melky's contract is 2 years 29M and Olivera's is 5 years 30M.
 
sturg33 said:
It is interesting... but their biggest value was their age.

Also, Wood put up 2.6 fWAR last year. He put up 2.6 fWAR in 2014. And he's projected for 2.4 in 2017. He's a good pitcher, young, and cheap.

Peraza was just icing on the cake (note that Peraza was the main piece the Reds got back for Frazier IIRC)
Click to expand...

I wouldn't redo the trade (read that as me agreeing with you). But the likeliest scenario is Olivera is an average regular (1-2 WAR), Wood is a decent (2-3 WAR), and Peraza is a fringe regular. So, we likely gave up value, unwisely, but we may recoup some of that if Bird, the draft pick, or Paco contribute.

It wasn't a good move, but it probably won't affect us much in the long term.
 
Chico said:
I don't get that comparison. Olivera has a great walk to strikeout ratio, and we don't even know his defensive value in LF, when we know Melky's is horrible. Also Melky's contract is 2 years 29M and Olivera's is 5 years 30M.
Click to expand...

Olivera's walk to K ratio was great when he was in his mid 20's in Cuba. It wasn't nearly as good last year. There's a good chance Melky is every bit as good in that department.

While we don't know Olivera's defensive value in left, we saw how bad he was at third last year and I can't imagine he'll ever be a great left fielder.

And while I didn't say it, I was asking the question as if the contracts were equal. All things equal, would anyone be excited about Melky?

chop2chip said:
I wouldn't redo the trade (read that as me agreeing with you). But the likeliest scenario is Olivera is an average regular (1-2 WAR), Wood is a decent (2-3 WAR), and Peraza is a fringe regular. So, we likely gave up value, unwisely, but we may recoup some of that if Bird, the draft pick, or Paco contribute.

It wasn't a good move, but it probably won't affect us much in the long term.
Click to expand...

I agree that we can recoup a good bit with Bird and the pick (I don't expect Paco to contribute). Bird probably ends up in the pen but could have what it takes to become a pretty good reliever. The draft pick is pretty high and I feel pretty good about us making something out of it.
 
the point you're missing is that some of us don't think olivera is melky, and feel his upside is higher than that. so it's a moot question. would you be excited about matt carpenter? i would.
 
sturg33 said:
It is interesting... but their biggest value was their age.

Also, Wood put up 2.6 fWAR last year. He put up 2.6 fWAR in 2014. And he's projected for 2.4 in 2017. He's a good pitcher, young, and cheap.

Peraza was just icing on the cake (note that Peraza was the main piece the Reds got back for Frazier IIRC)
Click to expand...

While I don't disagree that Wood is/has been a good pitcher, he is currently competing for a starting spot in the Dodgers rotation (per reports for Dodgers camp). You'd figure a guy with a career ERA of 3.30 wouldn't have to compete for a rotation spot. For whatever reason, it would seem his value around the league just isn't what we thought it was. Kinda reminds me of Wandy Rodriguez in that regard. No matter how well he pitched, no one seemed to really value him that highly.
 
yeezus said:
the point you're missing is that some of us don't think olivera is melky, and feel his upside is higher than that. so it's a moot question. would you be excited about matt carpenter? i would.
Click to expand...

Fair enough though even the most optimistic predictions about Olivera don't have him with near the power of Carpenter.

The reason I bring up Melky is that it seems to be a fair comparison. Batting average around .270 or.280, OBP around .320 or.330, SLG around .410 or .420, and between 12 and 15 HRs. Olivera certainly could exceed that. He could end up with a line of .300/ .350/.450. However, he could also be much worse. It's entirely possible he ends up with a line of .240/.300/.390.

We won't know until the season starts though Olivera is off to a nice start this spring.
 
sturg33 said:
The issue isn't that we can explain Olivera's struggles to a whole host of things... the issue is that a rebuilding team traded two very good assets for a 30 year old who has all these questions to begin with. The fact that we have to tinker with his swing is a problem. We shouldn't have given up so much for a project... and old project at that - one who has a long injury history and who hadn't played in over a year.

Now I know I'm going to be attacked as a hater but seriously, how can anyone with any semblance of objectivity defend that trade?
Click to expand...

I haven't really seen anyone defend the trade much. I certainly won't. I will say that it appears the value of both Wood and Peraza may have been lower than I assumed at the time of the trade, but I still don't like the trade and would prefer to have those two, at least to use in a different deal.
 
striker42 said:
I'm absolutely with you. The trade was ridiculous. Even if it works out and he produces the amount of risk made the trade foolish. It would be like putting your life savings into potato futures. Even if there's a potato blight and you quadruple your investment, that doesn't mean you were smart to make the move in the first place.

I agree that considering what we gave up, getting back a severely defensively limited, oft injured 30 year old (soon to be 31) whose swing we have to overhaul isn't a good return.

However, it's a sunk cost now. We have no choice but to hope for success.
Click to expand...

Well, setting aside the Wood/Peraza side of the price, it's not very great, is it? Aren't we picking up some extraordinarily small portion of the $62m?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top